That is a very important point. To many europeans, eastern Europe was liberated in 1989/1990. Replacing one dictator with another is not liberation.

You know, sometimes I wake up and read the news about bullshit coming out of the West and I start to think, maybe we should have just beat the shit out of the Nazis, stopped at our borders and then just let them just go all final solution on your asses. Seriously, why not? 70 years later and comments like this are showing that they are ungreatfull little shits for the sacrifices that Soviet soldiers made for their freedom. And funded the rebuilding of these ruined nations. And then their development. In hindsight, letting them work all of them in concentration camps to death might have been the better alternative.

Anyhow, let's come back to this subject in 50 years and see what Poland and the Baltic states are saying about their masters. Can't speak for Poland, but I can sure as hell speak for Lithuanians where I have relatives that I visit. They went from having no sovreignty and being under the USSR to having no sovreignty and being under the EU. Roads are a little better, they can now clean toilets or load boxes in the EU, but other than that, it's the same shit. But for now they still see themselves as a sovreign nation that asks "How High?" when western Europe asks them to jump.

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

maybe we should have just beat the shit out of the Nazis, stopped at our borders and then just let them just go all final solution on your asses. Seriously, why not? 70 years later and comments like this are showing that they are ungreatfull little shits for the sacrifices that Soviet soldiers made for their freedom.

You should have stopped at the border, all those raping and looting hordes of the Red Army who haven't seen a flushing toilet before, but that would require knowing where Russia begins and where it ends, wouldn't it? At the same time Stalin wanted the war booty so badly, didn't he? Btw, would that be borders as of 1.9.1939? I am sure the Baltic states would love that.BTW, what "FREEDOM"??? The Russian, bolshevik, barbed wired version of it? Red Army exported communism, nothing close to freedom. Russians would not even know what freedom is, even if they fell over one.

tu204 wrote:

And funded the rebuilding of these ruined nations. And then their development

Despite the fairy tales you are being told at Nashi camp, you haven't funded squat, E. Germany was literally looted by the Red Army. Russia needed the whole Comecon to feed your perverted Stalinist Evil empire otherwise Russians would be dying from hunger (once) again.

tu204 wrote:

In hindsight, letting them work all of them in concentration camps to death might have been the better alternative.

Roads are a little better, they can now clean toilets or load boxes in the EU, but other than that, it's the same shit.

If the analysis of the situation is just that roads are a little better and that they can go clean toilets in the EU I really feel sorry for your Lithuanian relatives.

Most Lithuanians paint a different picture, though.

Care to be objective and give some examples? My Lithuanian cousin (not a drop of Russian in him) graduated in Copenhagen, where if you ain't Danish, you ain't got a chance. Dude works in Vilnius, making 1200 Euros, where that is considered "the shit" (big money), and is asking me for help on how to get Russian Citizenship so he can move here. Do to want to give me a list of the benefits Lithuania recieved from switching opressors?

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

You know, sometimes I wake up and read the news about bullshit coming out of the West and I start to think, maybe we should have just beat the shit out of the Nazis, stopped at our borders and then just let them just go all final solution on your asses. Seriously, why not? 70 years later and comments like this are showing that they are ungreatfull little shits for the sacrifices that Soviet soldiers made for their freedom. And funded the rebuilding of these ruined nations. And then their development. In hindsight, letting them work all of them in concentration camps to death might have been the better alternative.

Really? You're that mad that you wish these "ungrateful little shits" died in a genocide? Maybe you should ask yourself about what happened in those 70 years you're talking about. What you call rebuilding was the establishment of communist dictatorships at the mercy of Moscow, the brutal oppression of any opposition and the restriction of literature, arts, music and basically any part of society that deviated from the party line for even an inch. What you call development becomes painfully evident in the pictures and videos taken in former Soviet satellite states after the fall of the iron curtain. I drove through eastern Germany and Poland after the wall came down and i didn't think the utter failure of the Soviet system could be any more evident. People in Estern Germany, Poland, Czechslovakia, Romania or Hungary didn't revolt because they were ungrateful for the sacrifices of Russian soldiers. They revolted because they were living miserable lives.

And i'm not saying the EU is perfect or that it isn't in need of reform. But to say the present situation of eastern EU states is similar with their time under Soviet rule is, at best, laughable.

1) I don't care what you say about NATO defending against a Russian invasion and not intended to invade Russia or whatever. NATO was created to be a contrast to the Warsaw Pact. Thats it. Now when the Warsaw pact ceased to exist, this exact timeframe, is when NATO started rapidly expanding.

Well, if every of your statements is of the same quality like this, then you better stop posting. The NATO wasn't created to be a contrast to Warsaw pact. Couldn't been. I was created 6 years earlier.And I remember very well the run from WP to NATO, I lived in one of those countries. It was simply "the Russian soldiers are gone, let's not let them come back ever"

1) I don't care what you say about NATO defending against a Russian invasion and not intended to invade Russia or whatever. NATO was created to be a contrast to the Warsaw Pact. Thats it. Now when the Warsaw pact ceased to exist, this exact timeframe, is when NATO started rapidly expanding.

Well, if every of your statements is of the same quality like this, then you better stop posting. The NATO wasn't created to be a contrast to Warsaw pact. Couldn't been. I was created 6 years earlier.And I remember very well the run from WP to NATO, I lived in one of those countries. It was simply "the Russian soldiers are gone, let's not let them come back ever"

I am speaking about the idea of NATO. NATO was created to counteract the USSR and it's sattelites. Do you agree or not?

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

You know, sometimes I wake up and read the news about bullshit coming out of the West and I start to think, maybe we should have just beat the shit out of the Nazis, stopped at our borders and then just let them just go all final solution on your asses. Seriously, why not? 70 years later and comments like this are showing that they are ungreatfull little shits for the sacrifices that Soviet soldiers made for their freedom. And funded the rebuilding of these ruined nations. And then their development. In hindsight, letting them work all of them in concentration camps to death might have been the better alternative.

Really? You're that mad that you wish these "ungrateful little shits" died in a genocide? Maybe you should ask yourself about what happened in those 70 years you're talking about. What you call rebuilding was the establishment of communist dictatorships at the mercy of Moscow, the brutal oppression of any opposition and the restriction of literature, arts, music and basically any part of society that deviated from the party line for even an inch. What you call development becomes painfully evident in the pictures and videos taken in former Soviet satellite states after the fall of the iron curtain. I drove through eastern Germany and Poland after the wall came down and i didn't think the utter failure of the Soviet system could be any more evident. People in Estern Germany, Poland, Czechslovakia, Romania or Hungary didn't revolt because they were ungrateful for the sacrifices of Russian soldiers. They revolted because they were living miserable lives.

And i'm not saying the EU is perfect or that it isn't in need of reform. But to say the present situation of eastern EU states is similar with their time under Soviet rule is, at best, laughable.

Wait for it. Poland and the Baltic States and the Ukraine like to play victims in whatever game they play. Yesterday it was the USSR and tomorrow it will be the EU that opressed them and took away their sovreignty.

I will agree with you that the Baltics in the USSR didn't really fit in. But what do you have to say about the oppression of the other 12 Republics?

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

Looted East Germany? Dude, as someone here posted, after the shit the Germans did here we had the moral right to wipe Germany off the map. As in a big clean grassy field that used to be "Germany". Yes, we could have done that and had the right to do so after the shit they pulled here when they occupied parts of the USSR during their little Belin-Moscow-Berlin Marathon.

You firmly believe in the concepts of "Might makes right" then? And of course "An eye for an eye"? What about "To the victors goes the spoils"? You appear to believe weakened defeated countries deserve subjugation and it goes doubly so, even more leaning to outright punishment, for any that attack others. Is this accurate?

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Looted East Germany? Dude, as someone here posted, after the shit the Germans did here we had the moral right to wipe Germany off the map. As in a big clean grassy field that used to be "Germany". Yes, we could have done that and had the right to do so after the shit they pulled here when they occupied parts of the USSR during their little Belin-Moscow-Berlin Marathon.

You firmly believe in the concepts of "Might makes right" then? And of course "An eye for an eye"? What about "To the victors goes the spoils"? You appear to believe weakened defeated countries deserve subjugation and it goes doubly so, even more leaning to outright punishment, for any that attack others. Is this accurate?

Tugg

I believe that the USSR in general withheld the punishment that Germany deserved after the shit they pulled here.

I am notsaying this was the wrong decision.

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

Looted East Germany? Dude, as someone here posted, after the shit the Germans did here we had the moral right to wipe Germany off the map. As in a big clean grassy field that used to be "Germany". Yes, we could have done that and had the right to do so after the shit they pulled here when they occupied parts of the USSR during their little Belin-Moscow-Berlin Marathon.

You firmly believe in the concepts of "Might makes right" then? And of course "An eye for an eye"? What about "To the victors goes the spoils"? You appear to believe weakened defeated countries deserve subjugation and it goes doubly so, even more leaning to outright punishment, for any that attack others. Is this accurate?

Tugg

I believe that the USSR in general withheld the punishment that Germany deserved after the shit they pulled here.

I am not saying this was the wrong decision.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I was curious as it seemed your statement implied more. Again thank you.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Because you guys are trying to prove that after the fall of the USSR NATO has a point to excist. So please seperate the USSR and the Russian Federation.

I do, don't worry. But you must admit that Russia was a primary participant, if not the driving force, for the Union. Most of the other countries danced to the tune Russia sung due to its size, power and economic strength. In fact it was when that waned during Perestroika that the Union dissolved.

As to NATO, it has every right to exist as it has no requirement for any state to participate. It is still 100% voluntary. And it was that new additional states wanted to join that contributed to its staying in existence. Surely you must understand that one of the reasons "fears" exist is it is due to the new members very much never wanting to return to the former hegemony that the Soviet Union, lead by Russia, asserted through the Warsaw Pact? It will take years (probably decades still) of peaceful relations with Russia for that to go away. Poland, the Baltic states, etc. were not allowed to leave the pact freely if they wished. And that is a key difference with NATO, if any nations wishes (or wished) to leave they can. (And yes, I know that today any nation can leave defense and trade pacts with Russia if they wish. Times have changed.)

You may disagree with the above and I understand that as well.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Democrats and Republicans are not the opposition. The Communist party of the United States is the opposition, but what did the US government with this party in the forties and fifties?

They (The Communist Party USA) were placed on a list of subversive organizations. It was possible for you to be sent to jail for being an avowed communist, advocating the violent overthrow of our government. Over a period of years the penalties got watered down or disappeared.

However, in late 1984 when I became an employee of the federal government, I had to sign a form declaring that I was not a member of any of a very, very long list of (subversive) organizations. The Communist Party was one of the few names that I recognized (out of maybe 150 organizations on the list). In any event, I was OK. The National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation were not listed.

Had I acknowledged Communist Party membership I would not have been hired.

But I would not have been sent to a gulag.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

Seriously, I already wrote that no European NATO country, as the NATO contingent in Europe are not able to seriously resist the attack of Russian troops in case of war, that is, even hypothetically, NATO is unable to protect any of the members of the Alliance of States, and especially the Baltic States.

Thank you for explaining perfectly why NATO is still necessary. If Russia goes after the Baltics, it will find itself at war with not just one European NATO country, but the combined power of the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada and all the other NATO countries. Russia will not win that fight. But, of course, if Russia doesn't got after the Baltics, then the fight never has to happen and we can all go on living our lives in peace.

1) I don't care what you say about NATO defending against a Russian invasion and not intended to invade Russia or whatever. NATO was created to be a contrast to the Warsaw Pact. Thats it. Now when the Warsaw pact ceased to exist, this exact timeframe, is when NATO started rapidly expanding. That alone is reason enough for Russia to percieve NATO as a threat right now. And is reason enough for Russia to start re-arming itself in the 2000's to face this threat.

Yeah, of course they started expanding as the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, because all the countries that became independent sought to establish better ties with the rest of Europe rather than with Russia. NATO isn't just a defensive agreement, there are diplomatic benefits as well.

You may not like that they want better ties with the rest of Europe, but they're independent countries now, so it's not your call.

Scorpius, i do believe that modern day Russia is portrayed in an excessively bad light in western media and i sympathize with you or other Russians who think that is unjust and want to do something about it. So i sympathize with your intentions.

But after reading through your posts, i have to admit that i'm not so sure anymore, whether your intentions were sincere... Your own posts are littered with inaccuracies and false statements and when you're getting called out for it you just call people "victims of the western propaganda machine" that don't know what they're talking about. You don't have to be victim to any propaganda, western or Russian to realize that many of your statements concerning standard of living in Soviet Russia, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, WWII and the Cold War, etc. etc. etc... at least have a strong Russian/Soviet bias, or are flat out false.

What you have successfully shown with this thread, is, that there are people in the west as well as in the former Soviet Union, who's view of history and present reality is bend and shaped by the nation and culture they live in. Judging from your posts, i can attest you that the Russian education system/TV/Media has done one hell of a good job on you. But please don't mistake that for "truth"...

This is your biggest problem - you continue to argue that I am mistaken, after I brought a bunch of information that refutes your statements about Russia and the Soviet Union. You know, I was born in USSR and lived in Russia, I personally watched the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing chaos. You, as an outside observer, I argue that the direct witness of the events is not correct in his assessment only on the basis that my assessment of the situation is not the same as yours.I Express the Russian point of view on events - but you call it propaganda of Putin and the USSR. LOL, why did you even come in this topic if you are willing to listen to only what matches your view of the situation?Why don't you think about how you are brainwashed by Western propaganda?

Looted East Germany? Dude, as someone here posted, after the shit the Germans did here we had the moral right to wipe Germany off the map. As in a big clean grassy field that used to be "Germany". Yes, we could have done that and had the right to do so after the shit they pulled here when they occupied parts of the USSR during their little Belin-Moscow-Berlin Marathon.

You firmly believe in the concepts of "Might makes right" then? And of course "An eye for an eye"? What about "To the victors goes the spoils"? You appear to believe weakened defeated countries deserve subjugation and it goes doubly so, even more leaning to outright punishment, for any that attack others. Is this accurate?

Tugg

After what the Nazis did in the USSR, we could do with them anything. You just don't know shit about what atrocities did the "enlightened Europeans" from Germany, Hungary, Italy, Czech Republic, France, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and many others (Yes, of the representatives of these countries were drawn up entire battalions of the SS and Wehrmacht). The Nazis killed our children, women and old people, driving them into barns and burning them alive (Katyn). Or taken of our people in concentration camps, where they were the subject of medical experiments (Dr. Mengele), killed them in order to find a better way of killing people. Or tried new forms of torture. Or drove our citizens into slavery to Germany. It was slavery - Slavs were not considered people, and this "enlightened Europeans" strongly emphasized.

After THIS, the Soviet people had every reason to destroy not only the Nazis, but also all who supported them. To destroy, to raze the roots of their city, to plow the earth in their place, and sprinkle it with salt, so that nobody and never could settle in a place where it crawled out such a monstrous, twisted evil. But the Soviet Union did not. After just 70 years, the descendants of those whom the Soviet Union could destroy, but did not, tell us about how terrible the Soviet Union was.

Yeah, of course they started expanding as the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, because all the countries that became independent sought to establish better ties with the rest of Europe rather than with Russia. NATO isn't just a defensive agreement, there are diplomatic benefits as well.

And they all expected to get gas ( and oil?) as cheap as in best soviet brotherhood times.And especially the Ukraine wasn't satisfied with cheap gas. They also had to snitch unmetered gas from the pipelinesand refrained from paying their metered gas.

Because you guys are trying to prove that after the fall of the USSR NATO has a point to excist. So please seperate the USSR and the Russian Federation.

I do, don't worry. But you must admit that Russia was a primary participant, if not the driving force, for the Union. Most of the other countries danced to the tune Russia sung due to its size, power and economic strength. In fact it was when that waned during Perestroika that the Union dissolved.

As to NATO, it has every right to exist as it has no requirement for any state to participate. It is still 100% voluntary. And it was that new additional states wanted to join that contributed to its staying in existence. Surely you must understand that one of the reasons "fears" exist is it is due to the new members very much never wanting to return to the former hegemony that the Soviet Union, lead by Russia, asserted through the Warsaw Pact? It will take years (probably decades still) of peaceful relations with Russia for that to go away. Poland, the Baltic states, etc. were not allowed to leave the pact freely if they wished. And that is a key difference with NATO, if any nations wishes (or wished) to leave they can. (And yes, I know that today any nation can leave defense and trade pacts with Russia if they wish. Times have changed.)

You may disagree with the above and I understand that as well.

Tugg

If NATO is not against Russia, why NATO did not take Russia into its membership at the beginning of the two thousandth? We made the proposal.

Democrats and Republicans are not the opposition. The Communist party of the United States is the opposition, but what did the US government with this party in the forties and fifties?

They (The Communist Party USA) were placed on a list of subversive organizations. It was possible for you to be sent to jail for being an avowed communist, advocating the violent overthrow of our government. Over a period of years the penalties got watered down or disappeared.

However, in late 1984 when I became an employee of the federal government, I had to sign a form declaring that I was not a member of any of a very, very long list of (subversive) organizations. The Communist Party was one of the few names that I recognized (out of maybe 150 organizations on the list). In any event, I was OK. The National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation were not listed.

Had I acknowledged Communist Party membership I would not have been hired.

But I would not have been sent to a gulag.

You absolutely do not know much about the Gulag. First, in the USSR, you would also not sent to the GULAG for your political views. Now, if you sabotaging grounds your political views, then Yes, you'd end up in the GULAG. However, I have a suspicion that in the US you might have more trouble even with unproven guilt - for example, let us remember the trials of "Communists sympathizers" in the US and think about what a Black list of Hollywood, for example. After all, this is an example of repression on political grounds, which were held in the "most democratic country in the world".

After what the Nazis did in the USSR, we could do with them anything. You just don't know shit about what atrocities did the "enlightened Europeans" from Germany, Hungary, Italy, Czech Republic, France, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and many others (Yes, of the representatives of these countries were drawn up entire battalions of the SS and Wehrmacht). The Nazis killed our children, women and old people, driving them into barns and burning them alive (Katyn). Or taken of our people in concentration camps, where they were the subject of medical experiments (Dr. Mengele), killed them in order to find a better way of killing people. Or tried new forms of torture. Or drove our citizens into slavery to Germany. It was slavery - Slavs were not considered people, and this "enlightened Europeans" strongly emphasized.

After THIS, the Soviet people had every reason to destroy not only the Nazis, but also all who supported them. To destroy, to raze the roots of their city, to plow the earth in their place, and sprinkle it with salt, so that nobody and never could settle in a place where it crawled out such a monstrous, twisted evil. But the Soviet Union did not. After just 70 years, the descendants of those whom the Soviet Union could destroy, but did not, tell us about how terrible the Soviet Union was.

I well know all of this and the full destruction and destitution of the Russian Front side of WWII. I also know well the Japanese side of it as well. It was a horrible time and events and the Germans (and Japanese) committed thousands upon thousands of atrocities. They should never be forgotten.

And nowadays some call the USA a belligerent or awful power and conspirator to cause damage to other countries in the world. So if that can be done and is believed to to be valid, then I do not see why calling the USSR out for its errors and faults and yes several atrocities is unfounded. It happens to all power that can impose their will on others.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

Seriously, I already wrote that no European NATO country, as the NATO contingent in Europe are not able to seriously resist the attack of Russian troops in case of war, that is, even hypothetically, NATO is unable to protect any of the members of the Alliance of States, and especially the Baltic States.

Thank you for explaining perfectly why NATO is still necessary. If Russia goes after the Baltics, it will find itself at war with not just one European NATO country, but the combined power of the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada and all the other NATO countries. Russia will not win that fight. But, of course, if Russia doesn't got after the Baltics, then the fight never has to happen and we can all go on living our lives in peace.

I think I already wrote here that Russia does not need to conquer the Baltic States, you can just wait until these countries are empty "as a result of freedom of movement of people across Europe", because since 1991, their population has decreased by 25%, whereas in Soviet times the population of the Baltic States increased. So don't confuse: when the development of the native language and folk culture of the Baltic countries sponsored by the government when the same government is building in these countries, roads, factories, hospitals, schools, power plants, ports and other infrastructure, the population of the Baltic countries is growing, and you live in better than average resident of the largest Republic of the country that pays you a terrible of the occupied Soviet Union.And when you are one of the poorest countries of the "free partnership of equals", your population decreases on average by 1% per year, you close down factories, power plants, hospitals, your youth knows nothing of their native language, and your country military base of the state, which is thousands of miles away from you, the citizens of which do not even show on a map where is Vilnius city you independent Baltic republics in the European Union (seriously, independence is to withdraw from one Union to immediately enter into the other?)

Democrats and Republicans are not the opposition. The Communist party of the United States is the opposition, but what did the US government with this party in the forties and fifties?

They (The Communist Party USA) were placed on a list of subversive organizations. It was possible for you to be sent to jail for being an avowed communist, advocating the violent overthrow of our government. Over a period of years the penalties got watered down or disappeared.

However, in late 1984 when I became an employee of the federal government, I had to sign a form declaring that I was not a member of any of a very, very long list of (subversive) organizations. The Communist Party was one of the few names that I recognized (out of maybe 150 organizations on the list). In any event, I was OK. The National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation were not listed.

Had I acknowledged Communist Party membership I would not have been hired.

But I would not have been sent to a gulag.

You absolutely do not know much about the Gulag. First, in the USSR, you would also not sent to the GULAG for your political views. Now, if you sabotaging grounds your political views, then Yes, you'd end up in the GULAG. However, I have a suspicion that in the US you might have more trouble even with unproven guilt - for example, let us remember the trials of "Communists sympathizers" in the US and think about what a Black list of Hollywood, for example. After all, this is an example of repression on political grounds, which were held in the "most democratic country in the world".

I do remember the trials and hearings regarding communist sympathizers and (in some cases) traitors. I read about them in the newspapers daily and also saw much on TV at the time (were you yet born?).

I remember in 7th Grade print shop class, we kids were getting a bit rowdy while we were supposed to be setting type in composing sticks. Our teacher was in the back room at a paper cutter. When he heard noise coming from our room he came racing out, red-faced, and jumped up and down while screaming at us that we were acting like a bunch of vile communists. It was easy to get labelled as a communist in those days, even in Jr. High School.

Our McCarthy and HUAC era was a disgrace. We did manage to get over it an outgrow much of the juvenile red scare tactics.

Does Russia still have the gulags or do they just shoot people on the street or poison them without benefit of trial?

I might be getting biased information about Russia from our liberal media, so please help me out.

Shalom

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

because since 1991, their population has decreased by 25%, whereas in Soviet times the population of the Baltic States increased.

Russia as part of the USSR was an active agent of replacing home populations in countries with belligerent local citizens. Literally citizens of Russia and other Soviet countries were offered jobs and benefits and incentives to move to regions to dilute the local origin population. The Chinese do it today in regions like Tibet. It is an age old tactic to control a region over time.

Scorpius wrote:

(seriously, independence is to withdraw from one Union to immediately enter into the other?)

Absolutely, yes, if that is your free choice to do so. Why would it not be "independence"? If you choose to go to the supermarket instead of going and hunting your own food by yourself, does that mean you and not independent or making a free and independent choice?

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

because since 1991, their population has decreased by 25%, whereas in Soviet times the population of the Baltic States increased.

Russia as part of the USSR was an active agent of replacing home populations in countries with belligerent local citizens. Literally citizens of Russia and other Soviet countries were offered jobs and benefits and incentives to move to regions to dilute the local origin population. The Chinese do it today in regions like Tibet. It is an age old tactic to control a region over time.

Tugg

This is not so.Once again - the Baltic States belong to Russia since 1721. If Russian was the purpose of the "replace population" - time for implementation that was more than enough. When Stalin deported some Nations, but the Baltic States had not been touched, although the reason for their deportation was a lot.

because since 1991, their population has decreased by 25%, whereas in Soviet times the population of the Baltic States increased.

Russia as part of the USSR was an active agent of replacing home populations in countries with belligerent local citizens. Literally citizens of Russia and other Soviet countries were offered jobs and benefits and incentives to move to regions to dilute the local origin population. The Chinese do it today in regions like Tibet. It is an age old tactic to control a region over time.

Tugg

This is not so.Once again - the Baltic States belong to Russia since 1721. If Russian was the purpose of the "replace population" - time for implementation that was more than enough. When Stalin deported some Nations, but the Baltic States had not been touched, although the reason for their deportation was a lot.

It is and was so. What about Kaliningrad? Was the population there not driven off and replaced and is now Russian? As I said, it is an old and well established tactic, just because it was not done at one time or another does not make any less real of a tactic or that it was not use at a different time.

And of course I failed to mention one of the largest native population replacement actions: The founding and establishment of the USA. Fairly large example there. Doesn't mean it is a good thing but it is what happened. And now we have political fights here about possible future occurrences.

Tugg

Last edited by Tugger on Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

They (The Communist Party USA) were placed on a list of subversive organizations. It was possible for you to be sent to jail for being an avowed communist, advocating the violent overthrow of our government. Over a period of years the penalties got watered down or disappeared.

However, in late 1984 when I became an employee of the federal government, I had to sign a form declaring that I was not a member of any of a very, very long list of (subversive) organizations. The Communist Party was one of the few names that I recognized (out of maybe 150 organizations on the list). In any event, I was OK. The National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation were not listed.

Had I acknowledged Communist Party membership I would not have been hired.

But I would not have been sent to a gulag.

You absolutely do not know much about the Gulag. First, in the USSR, you would also not sent to the GULAG for your political views. Now, if you sabotaging grounds your political views, then Yes, you'd end up in the GULAG. However, I have a suspicion that in the US you might have more trouble even with unproven guilt - for example, let us remember the trials of "Communists sympathizers" in the US and think about what a Black list of Hollywood, for example. After all, this is an example of repression on political grounds, which were held in the "most democratic country in the world".

I do remember the trials and hearings regarding communist sympathizers and (in some cases) traitors. I read about them in the newspapers daily and also saw much on TV at the time (were you yet born?).

I remember in 7th Grade print shop class, we kids were getting a bit rowdy while we were supposed to be setting type in composing sticks. Our teacher was in the back room at a paper cutter. When he heard noise coming from our room he came racing out, red-faced, and jumped up and down while screaming at us that we were acting like a bunch of vile communists. It was easy to get labelled as a communist in those days, even in Jr. High School.

Our McCarthy and HUAC era was a disgrace. We did manage to get over it an outgrow much of the juvenile red scare tactics.

Does Russia still have the gulags or do they just shoot people on the street or poison them without benefit of trial?

I might be getting biased information about Russia from our liberal media, so please help me out.

Shalom

Let me explain what the Gulag. It's an acronym for "Main Directorate of camps and places of detention". That is, in English the correct acronym is MDCam, but it does not sound so scary, right?As such, the history of the GULAG lasted from 1934 to 1953. As such, the history of the GULAG lasted from 1934 to 1959, since 1959, the GULAG does not exist. The writer Solzhenitsyn, who wrote so much about the GULAG (because of his work "the GULAG Archipelago" this abbreviation and received international acclaim), was imprisoned from 1945 to 1953 on charges of espionage and counterrevolutionary activities. Thus, when "inhuman Gulag," Solzhenitsyn was diagnosed with cancer of the testis(like that it tells us that prisoners regularly passed medical examination), he was out of surgery and it remained alive. Such a "brutal totalitarian regime."And when you ask a question like "Does Russia still have the gulags or do they just shoot people on the street or poison them without benefit of trial?", I can answer that - prisons in Russia, there is still, as in any country of the world. The death penalty in Russia is completely prohibited since 1997 (which is not true about the United States) and now the highest punishment in Russia is life imprisonment, while a life sentence is considered a term of imprisonment exceeding 25 years. Throughout the term of imprisonment may submit a petition for clemency, which shall be a separate decree of the President of the Russian Federation. A life sentence can you get for committing grave and especially grave crimes: mass murder, terrorist attacks.

And they all expected to get gas ( and oil?) as cheap as in best soviet brotherhood times.And especially the Ukraine wasn't satisfied with cheap gas. They also had to snitch unmetered gas from the pipelinesand refrained from paying their metered gas.

The first sentence a big fucking bullshit and I suspect you know very well it is. While we were protected from the 1973 oils shock by buying soviet oil and gas, by the time the commie regimes fell the protection was long over. We were paying regular world prices in convertible currency, while receiving a promise to be paid for our consumer goods exported to the USSR in transferable rubles. But we didn'g get even these. The Russian Federation took this debt up and we were eventually paid for a part of it in a form of some hangar queens and incredibly expensive maintenance contracts for military equipment.

Last edited by WildcatYXU on Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Let me explain what the Gulag. It's an acronym for "Main Directorate of camps and places of detention". That is, in English the correct acronym is MDCam, but it does not sound so scary, right?As such, the history of the GULAG lasted from 1934 to 1953. As such, the history of the GULAG lasted from 1934 to 1959, since 1959, the GULAG does not exist. The writer Solzhenitsyn, who wrote so much about the GULAG (because of his work "the GULAG Archipelago" this abbreviation and received international acclaim), was imprisoned from 1945 to 1953 on charges of espionage and counterrevolutionary activities. Thus, when "inhuman Gulag," Solzhenitsyn was diagnosed with cancer of the testis(like that it tells us that prisoners regularly passed medical examination), he was out of surgery and it remained alive. Such a "brutal totalitarian regime."And when you ask a question like "Does Russia still have the gulags or do they just shoot people on the street or poison them without benefit of trial?", I can answer that - prisons in Russia, there is still, as in any country of the world. The death penalty in Russia is completely prohibited since 1997 (which is not true about the United States) and now the highest punishment in Russia is life imprisonment, while a life sentence is considered a term of imprisonment exceeding 25 years. Throughout the term of imprisonment may submit a petition for clemency, which shall be a separate decree of the President of the Russian Federation. A life sentence can you get for committing grave and especially grave crimes: mass murder, terrorist attacks.

Well, according to one of my now deceased relatives who actually experienced the Gulag, Solzhenitsyn was actually quite restrained when describing the conditions. According to him, the reality was much worse than described in Solzhenitsyn's books.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, it was not outlawed. There is a moratorium on executions, but technically, the death penalty is still legal in Russia (albeit not mandatory for any crime)

Care to be objective and give some examples? My Lithuanian cousin (not a drop of Russian in him) graduated in Copenhagen, where if you ain't Danish, you ain't got a chance. Dude works in Vilnius, making 1200 Euros, where that is considered "the shit" (big money), and is asking me for help on how to get Russian Citizenship so he can move here. Do to want to give me a list of the benefits Lithuania recieved from switching opressors?

I have to call bullshit on this one too. Giving up your home turf is always difficult. I know very well what I'm talking about, I've done that. There absolutely no guarantee he won't experience the same problem in Russia. And btw, are you still flying the mighty 204 or did your airline already switched to that nasty western A320 just as Aeroflot did?

You and Scorpius should stop that Yugoslavia and NATO bullshit altogether. The NATO strikes in Serbia came after 8 years of war. They added approximately 5000 casualties to the overall body count. That's approximately 3.6% of the overall casualties in the area. I'm really ashamed to write that, but it seems like explosions on the home turf finally extinguished the blood thirst there and the war was finally over. But you both are painting a picture as if the NATO forces started the whole tragedy there. That's simply not true. It was already in motion for a long time.

In the Soviet Union was a democracy if you compare it with the current Western countries.

You have lost me completely with this, could you please explain what you mean by this? And in what way the USSR was a democracy?

Simple. They held elections and had probably close to 100% voter turnout. Just as we had in Czechoslovakia. The only problem with this kind of "democracy" was that the ballots contained only one name - the name of the sole and common candidate for the national front.

Its current secretary general is former norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg and the Chairman of the Military Committee is the Czech general Petr Pavel. The goal of Nato is to defend the member countries in case of an attack, not to destroy

I haven't seen anyone claiming that Russia during Yeltsin's rule was a free and democratic country, but many hoped that he was heading the country in that way. It is hard to replace a dictator with democracy, as many countries before have proved. And it can take time. But the last ten years, Russian democracy has been heading the wrong way. And there are many of us who are sorry for that, as we believe in democracy. https://infographics.economist.com/2017/DemocracyIndex/

You may consider me vary naive, but I also believe in democracy. However, democracy, where elected politicians truly represent interests of their voters, and not of some “sponsors”. Democracy, where national parliaments and governments represent interests of their citizens, and not demonstrate some “solidarity” or protect some “values”. Which is extreme scarce in the Western world - almost doesn’t happen. Does happen in Russia though - their leadership fights for interests of their nation very hard, like nobody else.

And please - don’t tell us about NATO purposes. Everyone knows about NATO’s adventures in Yugoslavia, then its leader nations went into Iraq, Lybia. Russia, in contrary, didn’t initiate even a single war for the past 3 decades. And speaking of the way of Russian democracy - whether it is right or wrong - it’s not up to you to decide. It’s up to Russian voters, who continue to support current politicians. Hence, they believe their leadership is leading their country the right way.

And speaking of the way of Russian democracy - whether it is right or wrong - it’s not up to you to decide. It’s up to Russian voters, who continue to support current politicians. Hence, they believe their leadership is leading their country the right way.

I am curious why you ban many would be candidates from running for office? Mr. Navalny is one well known example, he will likely be blocked from running next year. The idea that a current government gets to decide who runs contrary to your stated desire of a "real democracy". In the USA when crap like Clinton pulled with Bernie gets exposed there is a price to pay but she is not in power. It would be like Obama being able to decide that Trump cannot run for office.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

You and Scorpius should stop that Yugoslavia and NATO bullshit altogether. The NATO strikes in Serbia came after 8 years of war. They added approximately 5000 casualties to the overall body count. That's approximately 3.6% of the overall casualties in the area. I'm really ashamed to write that, but it seems like explosions on the home turf finally extinguished the blood thirst there and the war was finally over. But you both are painting a picture as if the NATO forces started the whole tragedy there. That's simply not true. It was already in motion for a long time.

Ok - who called you to Yugoslavia? What business did you have there to bomb someone’s economic infrastructure, bridges, manufacturing facilities? Kill someone’s civilians by air strikes, far from where the violence was going on (in Belgrade)? What did you leave there?

And please - don’t tell us about NATO purposes. Everyone knows about NATO’s adventures in Yugoslavia, then its leader nations went into Iraq, Lybia. Russia, in contrary, didn’t initiate even a single war for the past 3 decades.

Are we just forgetting that Russia invaded and annexed part of Ukraine a few years ago?

And i'm not saying the EU is perfect or that it isn't in need of reform. But to say the present situation of eastern EU states is similar with their time under Soviet rule is, at best, laughable.

I agree - present situation in Eastern European countries isn’t similar to that during USSR. But it doesn’t mean it’s really any better; it’s just different. Yes, today they have access to good looking food in colorful wrappers. Maybe roads are a bit better. But that’s all that can be said really. Downside - during “oppressive regimes” people were living in their own countries and were provided education, opportunities. Now - the only real opportunity most of them have is low-paid low-skilled jobs all over Western part of EU. And - that’s called “European freedom”. So let’s see what they will call a “miserable life” in a bit - under EU or when it falls apart.

And please - don’t tell us about NATO purposes. Everyone knows about NATO’s adventures in Yugoslavia, then its leader nations went into Iraq, Lybia. Russia, in contrary, didn’t initiate even a single war for the past 3 decades.

Are we just forgetting that Russia invaded and annexed part of Ukraine a few years ago?

No, we are not forgetting anything. People in that “part of Ukraine” made their choice to get out of Ukraine and join Russia. That’s what seems to be forgotten, if anything.

I am curious why you ban many would be candidates from running for office? Mr. Navalny is one well known example, he will likely be blocked from running next year. The idea that a current government gets to decide who runs contrary to your stated desire of a "real democracy". In the USA when crap like Clinton pulled with Bernie gets exposed there is a price to pay but she is not in power. It would be like Obama being able to decide that Trump cannot run for office.

Tugg

Every country has its own electoral procedures and they may contain restrictions as to who may or may not run. Mr. Navalny has been found guilty by court in a felony offense, and according to electoral legislature in Russia he can’t run until his criminal record expires. He can run after that though, provided he doesn’t get any other one. There will be other candidates that pretty much share his beliefs though (Ksenya Sobchak). Nobody prohibits her to run. So Russian voters will get his viewpoints represented and have a candidate to vote for. What’s the problem?

Thank you for explaining perfectly why NATO is still necessary. If Russia goes after the Baltics, it will find itself at war with not just one European NATO country, but the combined power of the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada and all the other NATO countries. Russia will not win that fight. But, of course, if Russia doesn't got after the Baltics, then the fight never has to happen and we can all go on living our lives in peace.

Oh please. Who do you think will fight for those Baltic states? Russia is confidently #2 power politically and militarily; and perhaps the only nation in this world who is capable to conduct SUCCESSFUL operations outside of their own territory. Sure USA is #1 in most (but no longer all) aspects, but when it comes to wars, have track record of outright failures (neither - Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia can be called success; they’ll have to leave Syria soon too without having achieved anything). Do you seriously believe that the USA will clinge with Russia over those Baltic states or even the whole Europe, risking nuclear war? I am not so sure of that; at least there are circumstances when Russians can be confident that nobody will be doing anything.

Speaking of European “might” - it’s laughable. If Russians decide to cross Ukrainian border (maybe even Western one) - how long will it take them to reach Dutch Atlantic Coast? Not more than a few weeks. And when a Russian colonel comes to his German colleague and says “dude, go home!” - what do you think will happen? Experience of Georgia, Crimea shows that this is exactly what will happen. Ukrainian generals know that too - in 2014 they were the first to call their Russian colleagues to say “if you get an order to cross the border - it’s ok, we understand, just call us beforehand and we will either go home or sit where we are and not do anything”. That’s about everything about NATO.

No, we are not forgetting anything. People in that “part of Ukraine” made their choice to get out of Ukraine and join Russia. That’s what seems to be forgotten, if anything.

The referendum was held under Russian military occupation with no option to remain part of Ukraine. The referendum was not legal per Ukraine's constitution because the whole country needed to be able to vote. That's annexation. Russia should never have been there.